:
I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting No. 35 of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022. Members may participate in person or via the Zoom application.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I have a few instructions to give.
Before you speak, please wait for me to recognize you by name. I also ask committee members to name the person they are addressing when they ask questions. I would remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.
In accordance with our routine motion, I wish to inform the committee that the witnesses completed the required connection testing prior to the meeting.
With that, we can welcome our witnesses, starting with thanking them for participating.
First, we have retired Maj. André Thivierge, co-founder and co-chair of the Ottawa Veterans Task Force.
Next, from the GardaWorld Security Corporation, we have Jean-Luc Meunier, president and chief operating officer, security services, Canada, with Colleen Arnold, vice-president, corporate affairs, and Simon Bernier, national director, innovation and technologies.
Our final witness, from the National Association of Career Colleges, is Michael Sangster, chief executive officer.
I will give each group the opportunity to given a five-minute opening presentation. I would ask that they look at me from time to time so I can signal them when their speaking time is up.
Mr. Thivierge, the floor is yours for the next five minutes.
:
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for inviting GardaWorld to today's meeting. This is an important meeting. It is a conversation about the National Strategy for Veterans Employment. We are very proud to be here today.
Before I tell you about our initiatives in this regard, I would like to tell you a bit about us. Our story began in 1995, when Canadian entrepreneur Stephan Crétier saw an opportunity in the market for security services and founded our company, GardaWorld. Today, from our headquarters in Montréal, we have grown into a global leader with an extensive portfolio of security and risk management services. We operate in several countries and employ 35,000 people in Canada.
The Government of Canada has entrusted us with delivering critical contracts, from airport security screening with the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to the safety of residents of immigration holding centres on behalf of the Canada Border Services Agency.
[English]
At GardaWorld, we are deeply committed to veterans employment. It's based on the fact that in our experience, veterans are exceptional employees. We have veterans at all levels of the organization, including our chief operating officer.
In 2019, GardaWorld received the veterans employment transition award at the annual celebration of service on Parliament Hill. This award was presented in recognition of the company's efforts in hiring veterans and reservists and their spouses.
All security companies want to hire more veterans. After all, there is a natural alignment between having served and working in security.
Here are some of the initiatives we have taken to support veterans' employment.
We have developed a veterans advisory board. It is led by my colleague Simon Bernier, who served in the forces for 10 years. The board ensures that our veterans' unique needs are met, whether it's through simplified access to top-notch mental health support or the flexibility to continue their service in the reserves.
We also have preferred hiring policies for veterans. We have added specific training for our recruiters on military CV terminology, and we work with trusted partners such as True Patriot Love and With Glowing Hearts.
Veterans employment is a complex subject, with many facets and challenges. As you have already heard, there is no one-size-fits-all solution. We would like to share with you a few suggestions that we think could support veterans employment after service.
First, increase alignment with the Canadian Forces to plan for post-service opportunities.
Second, implement military-friendly accreditation for businesses like ours. This would provide veterans the confidence of knowing that these businesses can meet their needs, thereby shifting the burden of after-service employment to businesses rather than to veterans.
Finally, we suggest the modernization of the right of first refusal for guard services, known as the RFR.
Due to its complexity, I will spend more time on this matter, considering the important impact and positive results this reform can accomplish, including the potential savings to the government. These considerable savings could be reallocated to support all Canadian veterans in their transition to civilian life.
As you may know, the RFR gives the Corps of Commissionaires—I will call them “the corps”—from whom the committee heard last week, a virtual monopoly on the protection of federal buildings.
Of the more than 600,000 veterans in Canada today, the corps employs 4,400 of them, which represents only 1% of the veteran population. As the committee heard from the Corps of Commissionaires itself, despite expanding the definition of “veterans” and reducing the threshold of hours required to be worked by veterans from 70% in 2014 to 60% in 2016, the corps remained unable to meet its mandate, with only 38% of the hours currently worked by veterans being on federal contracts. Despite this, the RFR monopoly with the Corps of Commissionaires remains in place.
[Translation]
Our industry firmly believes that it is time to modernize the right of first refusal and give veterans the freedom to choose for themselves where they will work, the company they want to work for, and the work they want to do. This would mean that all security companies, without exception, would then have equal access to these talents, and veterans would be presented with all the opportunities the industry has to offer.
There are mechanisms in place that would allow the Government to modernize the right of first refusal, replacing it with a system that works for veterans and for taxpayers. Doing so would provide more choice and opportunities for everyone, while increasing diversity in security services, and would allow the Government of Canada to realize substantial savings.
With that, we look forward shortly to answering your questions.
Thank you.
Good afternoon to all committee members and fellow witnesses.
I'm pleased to be here today to participate in your study on veterans' employment following their service and to share some of the ways that regulated career colleges are already answering the call and helping veterans find meaningful work in their post-service careers.
Before we begin, I'd like to take a moment to say thank you to all those currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces for the sacrifices you make, for the challenges you overcome and for putting your country first. Thank you to our veterans for standing your watch and answering the call.
Every day, employers, business associations and trade groups are calling me and my association, looking for well-trained, skilled workers who can show leadership, integrity, teamwork, problem-solving and accountability. That sounds to me like the men and women who serve in Canada's military.
More can and should be done to help service members understand the broad range of opportunities available to them before they are discharged, and more can be done for their families. We stand ready to support that effort.
As major trainers of mature workers, each year NACC's 450 regulated career colleges train more than 150,000 learners who go on to ease the critical labour gaps across the country after graduation. Our direct training-to-employment pipeline provides learners and their families with opportunities for advancement while responding to our country's diverse labour force and economic needs. Regulated career colleges work closely with employers to ensure that we are training for the skills currently required, which is important to consider for mature students who want to contribute immediately.
From coast to coast, regulated career colleges are currently working with active service members, veterans and their families, and I'd like to take a moment to inform you of a few of those examples.
Willis College, right here in Ottawa, is working closely with Veterans Affairs and DND to train active and transitioning service members for a number of exciting careers, including as cyber-defence and security analysts, cyber operators and business administrators.
Last year, Willis College also announced the creation of a new $2-million Learning Together veteran and family scholarship to provide full tuition scholarships to family members of veterans also taking one of their programs. I know Mr. Samson attended that announcement, and I want to thank you for your participation and support, sir.
CBBC Career College in Nova Scotia has also established a military and veterans partnership team to create a veteran-friendly centre and learning environment that provides the flexibility for military veteran students to flourish.
We recognize at NACC that there are many transition services currently available for Canadian Armed Forces members. We see an opportunity for the National Association of Career Colleges and our provincial affiliates to be more integrated in the program. More can be done together to educate veterans on the benefits of our training options.
Regulated career colleges offer thousands of flexible training programs that allow our learners to step out of the military service directly into the classroom and go on to the job site. Back-to-school day at a career college is every day of the week. Courses start every week of the year. Students graduate every week of the year. If you were discharged on a Friday, you can start training for a new career on a Monday morning.
In a similar vein, since regulated career colleges are in communities across the country, not just in large urban areas, you don't have to be in Toronto, Ottawa, or Calgary. You can be in Trinity, Melville, or Rimouski.
We get people trained faster. We train them closer to their homes and families. We train them where the demand for workers exists and in the communities you represent.
I would strongly recommend that the government convene an ongoing veterans skills and training table that includes a wide range of partners, including regulated career colleges and employers, to keep everyone working and focused on this issue. Establishing a regular and ongoing working table is one way to ensure continued collaboration and keep us all focused on what matters most, which is getting more veterans into more jobs through the best training possible.
To be bold, we recommend that the government and NACC build a program for spouses and children of active military and veterans. When soldiers serve, their families serve as well. The nomadic life of a military family makes maintaining a career for family members difficult.
This committee can recommend in its report bringing employers, governments and regulated career colleges together to support military families in getting trained for roles and skills needed by employers. As a leader in industry-driven skills training, we welcome the opportunity to work with all levels of government to continue providing job training programs tailored to the unique experiences and needs of veterans.
Thank you, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss these solutions with you in more detail.
I plan on ceding some of my time to my neighbour here, because we have quite a few questions and it's a short meeting.
First of all, thanks to everyone for being on our panel today. I think we're doing a great study. Hearing from the individuals who are helping us achieve some of those goals, hopefully, is fantastic.
Thanks to those on our panel who have served.
My first question will go to Mr. Meunier.
As you know, we heard testimony on the Corps of Commissionaires last week. I don't want to pick on any organizations, because I think they do great work as well.
You highlighted the RFR and the advantage, and I agree that it hurts companies like yours. I think everyone should, hopefully, be on the same playing field when we're hiring veterans coming out of the field. I heard that from Mr. Sangster from the National Association of Career Colleges as well.
In your opinion, what would a better process be to ensure people hire veterans and keep up numbers? Are we perhaps better off incentivizing hires than having a contract that states, “You need a certain number of veterans in your organization”?
:
Thanks very much for your question.
I think there are multiple processes in place already, today. Without getting into too much detail, one in particular is called the “regional standing offer”. Essentially, what this does is pre-qualify service providers. Pre-qualifying sets standards that different providers need to meet. In doing so, you are vetting them to ensure veterans are hired and keep the employment they already have and retain their salary and benefits, their full compensation packages.
As I said, it's a veterans-preferential hiring policy. Putting that out to multiple companies makes it become a competitive process and allows the government to save upwards of $45 million. We know, from the minutes of standing committee meetings past, that the Corps of Commissionaires currently charge about 15% more than market rates. Forty-five million dollars is an awful lot of money that could go towards other programs that support our veterans.
Thank you to my colleague.
I appreciate you all being here. I will do my best to transition to some questions that are different from than those I had today.
I appreciate your concerns. You indicated that three things are important, one of them being the modernization of the right of first refusal. I need some clarity in those arguments. From what I understand, the Corps of Commissionaires is a non-profit or charitable organization, so their overhead is significantly less. There isn't that profit-driven side of things playing into the role of their organization.
The only point I have a question on.... I certainly don't have a question about being a business. As a matter of fact, I believe businesses are definitely far more efficient than government, a lot of the time, and I'm sitting in government—well, close.
My question is, what is your rationale for feeling that the right of first refusal needs to be shared more broadly?
Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Welcome. Certainly your testimony is important to what we're doing here on this particular study.
I think the ultimate goal for all of us is to create a better system across the country to allow veterans to find employment and hopefully something to guide them to careers for their entire lifetimes.
Mr. Sangster, I want to ask you a question about the colleges.
I know you made some comments in your opening statement, but I'd like you to tell this committee some of the best things you do that create employment opportunities for veterans and how it's such a success story. You've shared some things with me in a private meeting, so I want you to share those with the committee.
:
Thank you, sir. I appreciate the opportunity to answer the question.
I believe it's our fast, innovative, agile style that we work with, being an entrepreneurial organization. We have about 450 members across Canada, and they're used to being very closely associated to the local employers and the local labour force needs, so we can train people quickly for what's needed in the economy nearby.
To answer your question, I'm going to answer you with an example of something that went on. While it's not veteran-related, in Ontario, we were able to train over 17,000 personal support workers during COVID. They came into our colleges in Ontario—and I have that case study I can use today—enrolled, studied, did practical placements, graduated and went into long-term care and personal care homes during COVID. Those are the kinds of examples we have all across the country.
We have veterans and active duty members at Willis College, where they're training to be cybersecurity experts inside DND. It's the fast, nimble approach that I believe our members can bring that is so valuable for learners.
I have to say that I think they're very adept and able to teach and educate people who come out of the military who have a bunch of those skills that employers are already looking for, turn them around quickly—three, six, nine months—and get them to work.
Thanks to the witnesses for being with us.
These comments have been very interesting, constructive and useful to us. I would just like to recall that the objective of our committee and this study is to put forward recommendations. If you could direct your remarks to that, it would be helpful.
Mr. Meunier, in your presentation, you said that the right of first refusal was a regulatory mechanism that requires federal agencies to give priority to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires before turning to other suppliers for the security guards it needs.
This is what I understood.
I hope you will forgive my ignorance or my naiveté in this regard, but I would like to know whether the regulatory mechanism is found in a federal law.
:
First, workers are harder to find today than they used to be.
Second, veterans are referred to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires rather than to the industry. So we have to work a lot harder to recruit veterans. The interest of all of the veterans who come to us is different from the ones who choose the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. You can ask Mr. Bernier, who will be able to testify himself as a former member of the military.
I don't want to start an argument against the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires. I want the discussion to help us recruit more veterans and do away with the notion that there is only one place where veterans can work, because that is not the case. We have so many opportunities to offer them, the industry and ourselves, including the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.
The regulatory mechanism governing the right of first refusal could be modernized, in the interests of veterans, the Canadian government, and ourselves. From what we have understood at the Senate committees, we think it costs the Canadian government more to retain this mechanism as it stands. That is the sole perspective from which I am coming at the question.
In addition, there is a need for resources everywhere. If this mechanism could be modernized in everyone's interests and we could do business with Mr. Sangster, we would benefit from all the programs that can help to recruit veterans. We just need help to modernize this aging and out of date mechanism.
Mr. Bernier, I don't know whether you want to add something.
:
We can say that the new generation of veterans no longer resembles the generation from 1945, the year when the right of first refusal mechanism was adopted. Personally, I am like a majority of members of the military, who do not complete their full service, and leave the forces after a decade or so.
Having myself obtained a master's degree after my service, I can tell you that private enterprise offered a much wider range of opportunities, for example in technology or innovation, than the government, which was directing us more to the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires, was doing.
I think there has to be an accreditation system for the industry, something like the ISO standard in the private sector. We could join it ourselves so that veterans didn't have to do it when they make their transition after their service. Private businesses could play that role, as we have done on our own initiative. That system would be incorporated into the Government of Canada programs.
:
Thank you. It certainly won't be less. You know me, Chair.
First of all, I just want to say that I don't want to talk about the right of first refusal. In fact, if we start talking about it, I will immediately end the conversation, because in this study, what I'm interested in is how we best support veterans. If you're different from another organizations, that's cool; I don't care. I just want to hear what your success is. I want to get that out right away, because I just don't think this is the right place. I certainly acknowledge you're doing your work, and that's your business, but I just don't think this is the place for that discussion.
This is my first question, and I'm going to ask both of you. I'm going to start with GardaWorld Security Corporation.
I'm just curious. In the structure that you have, how are veterans in leadership and guiding you in the methods you are using to support veterans?
You can go first, and then I'll go over to the National Association of Career Colleges.
:
Thank you for the question, Madam Blaney.
Essentially, we had a chance to build a veterans advisory board internally. We have active reservists as well, both on the officer side and on the rank side, across the country. Not only do we have a voice through that board; we are actually listened to.
One clear example for that, which was not the case before, is that we've allowed for service members and veterans to wear their ribbons honouring the medals that they have earned throughout their service. This is a brand new initiative we have pushed forward.
Making them feel a fit with the culture in the organization is something that we strive for. That cultural fit is way broader than ribbons. We definitely push for having civilian members of the organization understand. As we say in Latin, audi alteram partem—listen to the other party—so that we can join at a certain point in the middle.
I have questions for both groups with us today.
I'll start with you, Mr. Sangster. I was intrigued by some one-on-one discussion you and I had, as well as what you said here in committee today about programs for spouses and family members.
That's something that often gets forgotten when working to help our veterans. It isn't just confined to employment or career transition; it's really across the board. It's often forgotten that the service these men and women give to this country has an impact on their families and their spouses as well.
One of those areas is in this area, because many veterans are often required to move across the country a number of times during their service to our country. This can create difficulties in terms of being prepared for that transition to civilian life afterward. It also applies to the spouse and the family. It's great to hear you talking about that.
I know you have a unique perspective. You had some time in your career in government. You had some time in your career in the private sector in leadership roles, and of course in this leadership role with the National Association of Career Colleges. You have the ability to put something in place and work through that organization to see something come to fruition.
You mentioned the idea that there should be a program for spouses and family members to help get them trained and give them the skills that are needed by employers. Can you elaborate a bit more? Do you have more thoughts on what that program should look like?
:
We're proposing today the start of a conversation. I have not yet put together, with pen to paper, what we'd exactly like to see, because we don't believe we're the only partner at the table.
We believe the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Council of Canada, trade unions, employers in this country.... When I say employers, I think of large telcos, large banks, Canadian Tire and Tim Hortons. I think of large employers that are spread across this country whose employees could easily move from location to location.
When we talk about the mental health of a serving member of the military, I believe that if we're taking care of the family.... I do believe, as you said, that when members serve in our military, their families serve right alongside them. They carry that stress and anxiety. If we could do one small thing that helps them feel better about the world, and where it's going.... Even as members move into their own retirement from the military, knowing that their spouses and children are in a good place is going to help them feel good about retraining.
We see other post-secondary institutions being a part of this conversation. We've not defined the whole program, but I do believe our country would benefit from doing this.
To Mr. Desilets' comments, I believe that's what you asked us to do. It's to come with some ideas and come with what we can propose and bring ideas from different people to the table.
:
That's very much appreciated.
I have a question for Mr. Meunier or Ms. Arnold. It's for whoever wants to answer from Garda. Hopefully, we'll get a chance to come back to this conversation, but I want to go there first. It is in regard to the right of first refusal.
As other members of the committee have said, we had the Corps of Commissionaires come here last week to tell us they felt that the 60% target was an unrealistic target in this day and age. You're telling us that you think that opening it up for more competition so that you have the opportunity to provide those services would maybe lead to more veterans being employed.
Much like others, I don't have a dog in this fight. I just want to see more veterans employed. I would love to get into that a bit.
You mentioned 21 companies, including yours, that are available in the security industry. You do have some federal contracts. You mentioned CATSA, and there are some with immigration as well.
Because you can only speak for your own company, can you tell us the number of employees you have? How many of those are veterans? In particular, with your federal contracts, what is the percentage of hours currently worked by veterans in federal contracts? What are your barriers in order to hire more?
:
Colleen will probably add to what I will say.
We have many divisions and many types of contracts. We don't measure the veteran ratio by contract but by division, like the cash service division that we have. These people carry arms, as you know, so 25% of the ranks are people from the forces. This is a good place for them. They are used to that. They are well-disciplined and know exactly what to do. The training is minimal, because they are suited for that type of role.
Unfortunately, on the contract side, I don't have the stats.
Regarding the detention centre, many of them are.... Sorry; there's no more time, apparently.
We have specific recruitment days that focus on veterans and their families. Interestingly enough, we heard about the spouses and how difficult moving is, given the different schedules, etc.
We do have a very flexible workforce that is separate from the permanent, regular workweek type of group. In Quebec, we call them les réservistes. We have a lot of veterans and reservists with the military, and their families, who can put their name in this pool. We'll call them, and if they're available, they'll work; if they're not available, we'll call them the next time.
:
Yes, I'm pleased to do that.
There's one thing that I'd like to talk about, and I should have mentioned this when Mr. Richards asked me. One of the best practices when we talk about this family program is at Willis College here in Ottawa, which unleashed a $2-million scholarship fund, on their own, for families.
I believe you were there, sir, when it was announced. To go along with the veterans who are in the government's veterans education program, they have added spaces for free education for spouses and children alongside them at the very same time, so when you talk about putting pen to paper, we have a little bit from the actions of one of our colleges.
When it comes to the recruitment of best practices, one of the things that this hearing, this process, has led me to do is to take a good look at this. We're looking at some of the things that we could do better. I'm talking to our colleges and I'm looking forward to some conversations with the Department of Veterans Affairs and possibly this table we're recommending, which would put people at the table to talk about these best practices and bring them into action.
I don't believe that our association has done a good job of educating our members on some of these programs that are available, and I think we can work alongside Veterans Affairs to do more career fairs, more job fairs and more learning fairs to get to veterans. I'm hearing talk about a landing page for veterans on the stuff we do, and that's a great idea. We've been doing it in our social media, but we should have a page through our site that students can come to and learn about these programs. It might be a spouse who finds it and not the active member, and then we can get them into the training program.
I think there are some lessons learned here for us as well.
:
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
I first have a request for GardaWorld Security Corporation.
I'm wondering if you could share with the committee the starting wage and wage range for veterans in the different positions that are provided. I assume you don't have that on your person right now. That would be really helpful.
I have a second question for both of you. I'll start with GardaWorld.
I'm a little concerned, because I heard in your testimony that you don't track veterans unless they self-disclose. That's interesting. I ran a non-profit, and we had to identify everyone. There you go. That's very interesting.
How do you measure outcomes in terms of veterans getting the training, the employment and then the retention of employment?
I have the same question for you as well, Mr. Sangster, around the training, retention and employment.
That information would be really helpful to the committee.
:
For me to answer that question it's tricky, because every province is different, and I get lots of apples and oranges. Everybody studies it differently and gathers it differently, or doesn't gather it, or gathers it in ways that are ineffective. Ontario has just changed the way they're doing it, which is going to be much more effective for us.
What I can tell you is that in terms of our learners, we tend to have a higher graduation rate. We tend to have a higher employment rate and a higher rate of working in the fields that we train them for. I think that's a natural thing, with the size and length of our programs and the hands-on learning that we do.
That being said, we're in the process of looking to do a national study to come up with some of those numbers. COVID-19 also stopped some of that work that allowed us to capture some of that information.
Further to my earlier comments, I welcome the opportunity to talk about that with you and to look at some ways we could capture some of the data you're looking for, because we're going to be doing it.
I really appreciate the conversations taking place today. They're very helpful.
I just want to say that my NDP colleague steals my questions all the time. We think similarly, shall we say.
I really do have a concern about the fact that what I'm hearing today—and there's no judgment here at all—is that we don't know how many veterans are being employed, where they are and what they're learning. We have a national strategy here for veterans' employment after service. It seems that we're trying to catch up with the title, quite honestly.
I don't know if you are aware, but as of September 1, 2021, there were 171 VAC employees who identified as Canadian Armed Forces, as being part of the armed forces. That is out of 3,455 full-time equivalents. That's only 4.9% or 5% of their group of employees.
According to the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for administering hiring priorities for the public service, 330 appointments out of the 64,796 hires made in 2021 for the entire public service were veterans. That's 0.5%.
When we talk about making sure our veterans have good jobs coming out of the service, it appears to me that we really don't even know what we're working with here, so I appreciate your saying that you're prepared to do the work to find out so that we can meet the intent of this new national strategy.
My question would be on how committed you are to actually doing this work. I have to say that I'm not impressed with VAC. They don't know the answers to these questions. We're just starting to look at finding out where our veterans are in regard to being employed. It seems counterintuitive to me, but regardless....
I also have a question about wages. Simon, can you tell me what the starting wage is for a particular area of service?
Sorry; it's for whoever....
:
Many of our career colleges, our regulated career colleges, work closely with the community colleges and the universities nearby. We like that partnership. We believe we have a role to play and they have a role to play.
To give you an example of some of those programs, we're getting asked right now for 75,000 truck drivers, which some of our colleges also train. That's one of the needs out there. That's a very well-paid career in this country. It's upwards of $100,000 for some of those people. Coming out of the military, it's a great role for someone.
I'll give you a very tangible example. We have the member for Newfoundland and Labrador here today. We have a great partnership there. The career colleges, the community colleges and the universities all work together very well. We'd like to encourage more of that. That's why we're proposing today to talk about our commitment to this table, this permanent structure, where we can talk about taking care of veterans.
[Translation]
This is where we end the questions.
During the testimony, we heard that Mr. Bernier is also a veteran.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I want to thank you for your service. I also want to tell you that we offer special services for veterans when we invite them, to be able to assist them at the committee. Please do not hesitate to call on our committee. The clerk will help you with this.
With that, I would like to thank the witnesses who have appeared today: first, from GardaWorld Security Corporation, Jean-Luc Meunier, president and chief operating officer, security services, Canada; Colleen Arnold, vice-president, corporate affairs; and Simon Bernier, national director, innovation and technologies.
[English]
From the National Association of Career Colleges, we had Mr. Michael Sangster, chief executive officer.
[Translation]
Thanks again for your contribution.
Committee members, we are going to suspend for a few seconds to have time to thank our witnesses, and we will then move on to the second part of our meeting.
I am suspending the meeting.
:
We are resuming the meeting.
The agenda shows that the second part of the meeting is set aside for committee business. Committee members have a choice: we can continue to meet publicly or we can meet in camera. If the members want to continue the meeting in camera, I will have to suspend the meeting for two or three minutes. As I said, in the second part of the meeting, we will essentially be discussing upcoming committee business.
First, I would like to make a few announcements.
On Thursday, we will hear from four witnesses; two people will be testifying during the first hour of the meeting, and two others will be testifying during the second hour.
The next week, we will be hearing from more witnesses; their names are on the witness list. As well, I would note that the list will be updated so we are able to hear testimony from a sufficient number of witnesses during our study.
[English]
First I have Mr. Richards, who would like to intervene.
The main point of my intervention is to say that we have literally less than 15 minutes. I would ordinarily say that committee business, unless there's a reason for it not to be in camera.... There are various reasons for it not to be in camera. We quite often do that in camera, but I was going to suggest, given the limited time that we have, that we not suspend to go in camera.
Let's use part of the time that we have, especially since I don't think there's a whole lot of discussion that's going to be needed here. It sounds to me like you have this week and next planned with this study, and then there's one week before we have a break. I would like to see us try to get a report done on the study we were doing before Christmas on the rehab contract. Maybe we can get into that and end at that point.
I haven't had a lot of time to think about what should come next yet, but maybe at that point, once we've finished that review and that report, we would have an opportunity to have some further discussion, with a little more time, about what would come next. We can all come with suggestions and make a plan for it, because we have two weeks of constituency week. That could give our clerk some time to plan witnesses, or whatever the case might be.
My suggestion is that we roll through this week and next and go to work on the report that we should begin work on. We could then, during that week when we have two meetings, have some discussion about what comes next.
:
Now I want to be difficult and say no, but I'm not going to do it. I'm fine with it being public.
It sounds like we need to probably plan, as per what Blake said, another public subcommittee meeting in the next while to have discussions about studies going forward.
I will remind everybody on the committee that I'm pushing really hard to have a study on women veterans. Every report we read talks about the fact that we don't know enough about women veterans. I think we need to spend some time on that, and hopefully engage the government to look into it a bit more with some fundamental recommendations.
That's all I have for my intervention.
Thank you so much, Chair.
As I said, we have that time to discuss. We have this week, which is okay for the session. Next week, we have....
[Translation]
The clerk will have to call the people who are to testify at the two meetings next week. The following two weeks are break weeks.
I think that if we discuss the upcoming studies in the time we have left, we will be able to prepare a witness list to submit to the clerk and plan the next meetings, as Ms. Blaney said.
When we come back, that is, after the break weeks, we may have a report. Can our analyst tell us whether we will be receiving the report, and the translated version, when we come back from the break weeks?
This is an interesting discussion. I just find it odd as well. I support what Cathay said about a contract that's not translated into both languages. I think the only thing we need to talk about is that it should be done quickly, and the analyst is a very brave and fearless person, because he has to read that 700-page contract. Thank you for doing your work; it is much appreciated.
I just want to put on the floor again that I think we have the next two meetings, and that gets us through to a break week, and then we come back for one week. I would recommend that during that time we have a subcommittee meeting to go over what our strategies and plans are moving forward. I'm really excited to see who the Liberal will be on the committee, so I'm really excited to get it to happen. I think that's where we should go.
As for the report, hopefully we'll be able to hear by next week that it's moving along quite well. That will allow us to decide what we're going to do next. I would assume that we're going to have to have closure of one of our meetings with committee business again next week.
Thank you for that, and thank you to the analysts for reading that document.
:
First I have a suggestion, and then, just so I'm clear, do you want a motion from the committee on what we do next? I think we can have consensus, can't we?
The Chair: In general...
Mr. Blake Richards: I like basically what Rachel had to say, but I'd rather not see us cut into witnesses' time in the two meetings next week. I find that when we have two panels and we only have an hour, there isn't a lot of time. I hate when we cut into that time. Sometimes it has to happen and there's no option, but I think that in this case, it's not really the case.
We have the two-week break. Then we come back, and we're only here for a week, and then we have another constituency week.
Perhaps on Monday, when we come back from the two-week constituency break, what we could do is just schedule the subcommittee meeting then, and we make a plan. Hopefully, then, at the Thursday meeting, we can look at the report, because that will give you a few more days, and then we have a plan for when we come back from the next constituency break. Does that make sense?
:
I'm going to explain why the idea of extending this study concerns me.
We had scheduled six meetings, and we started the third one today. So we have three left. We wanted this study. There will be a report to be produced and instructions to be given. I'm having trouble seeing when it is going to be finished. Are we talking about May or June?
I say this because we were very invested in this study, including Mr. Casey, among others, and I am in complete agreement. However, we also heard the Assistant Deputy Minister, ten days ago, when I asked him when the national strategy would be tabled, tell us clearly that it would be in the near future. In other words, it will be in a few months. So you understand my concern. Are we working for no reason? Is the report going to come before the tabling of the national strategy, or will it come after it?
So I have a question to ask the clerk.
Can we make a clear decision on the timeline? I understand it isn't easy for you, because witnesses appear and disappear, but can we identify a point in time? In the worst case scenario, we will inform the department so it can delay tabling its strategy and look at the work we have done.
I don't know whether that is clear.